The Henson Journals

[91]

Saturday, August 2nd, 1919.

[symbol]

"All the differences in Christendom are about institutions, not about morals. He that produceth the best reason in morals, & he that produceth the best Scripture in institutions is to be closed with. Protestants follow the law of God's creation according to the law of God's institution. Their's is reasonable service"

Benjamin Whichcote 1610–1683

How far is this true? Does Christian history bear out the statement that Christians have not differed about morals? Asceticism determines large departments of human practice, can it be said, either, that it has bred no differences among Christians, or, that these differences are not properly said to be about morals? Is not Christianity divided at this moment on the subject of marriage? And can that division be excluded from the description of moral differences? Marriage may, indeed, be regarded as an institution, & the Christian view of it held to be properly determined by Scripture, or by the Church i.e. by an external authority. But take the larger subject of 'purity' is there complete agreement among Christians as to what it means, & requires? Can the Roman Catholic, tied fast to the traditional asceticism, think in the same way about sexual relations as the Protestant, who frankly repudiates the ascetical point of view?

[92] [symbol]

The legitimacy of War has been hotly denied by the Quakers & many other Christians – is there no moral issue involved?

'Temperance' is identified with 'total abstinence' by many thousands of English & American Christians, who therein have severed themselves, not only from the general tradition of historic Christianity but also from the majority of existing Christians. Is this not truly called a moral issue? There is the sharpest division on economic and political issues, does not this push into the category of morals?

But, indeed, does not Whichcote really answer himself when he says that ' he that produceth the best reason in morals is to be closed with', for this implies discussion of reasons, decision as to which is the best, & the opportunity for differences of opinion?

It would seem that there is no better assurance of agreement among Christians in the realm of morals, than in that of institutions. And the probability of difference increases with the growing complexity of civilized life, & the waxing of knowledge. Take such a new question as that which is now pressing for decision – the legitimacy in point of Christian morality of using contra–conceptive methods. Or the validity of marriage with a syphilitic or insane partner, whose condition, actual or latent, had not been disclosed before marriage.

[93] [symbol]

"Atheism could never have so easily crept into the world, had not superstition made way & opened a backdoor for it: it could not so easily have banished the belief of a Deity, had not that first accused and condemned it as destructive to the peace of mankind, & therefore it hath always justified & defended itself by superstition"

John Smith 1618–1652

Atheism is to reasonable religion what Prohibition is to temperance – an extreme which has become a perversion. The excuse for Atheism is extremely unreasonable Religion allowed to monopolize the name and claim of Religion. The excuse for Drunkenness is Prohibition (compulsory total abstinence) allowed to monopolize the name and claim of Temperance. The total abstainer's mind is filled with 2 assumptions: 1. Alcoholic beverages are poisonous. 2. Total abstinence from alcoholic drink is identical with temperance. We may add a third in the case of religious total abstainers – That wine in the Bible means unfermented grape juice. The 1st justifies coercion: the 2nd guarantees results: the 3rd disarms Christian opposition. Discussion with total abstainers always leads to no result because these assumptions destroy its actuality. "Freedom", "temperance", "wine" – mean different things.

---